Blue_Mourning
-
Posts
362 -
Joined
-
Look for the contact "Serge" at the tailor in Steel Canyon.
-
I believe I should have used the term "measure of acceptable power".
-
Quote:My point is that it's pointless to measure how powerful you think your chosen AT is by whether or not it can solo an AV. As often as it's done on these boards they really are outliers for the general COH population. Those difficulty settings are meant to be difficult, and not everyone can, or should, be able to handle them. To me that's fine.Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison
This makes no sense. Of course you can measure how powerful something is by the types of targets it can solo.
Is that the best way to measure how powerful an AT is? Maybe it is.
Is that the best way to measure how much an AT contributes to a team? Certainly not.
I think there's a certain minimum that everyone should be able to accomplish; I"m personally not convinced that peacebringers are there yet, but complaining that some defender combinations (and I'm a firm believer in that it's nigh impossible to compare HEATS to the other AT's merely because there are no powersets to choose from so there's a lot more homogeneity within the AT in terms of what the AT is capable of) can solo AV's and you can't shouldn't be the measure of whether or not PB's deserve a buff.
I think they do. But I'm not sure what evidence to post for it. Merely that that particular thing doesn't suffice. -
Yes, because the measure of how powerful something should be is in whether it can solo an AV.
-
From a power variety perspective, there is no way that this does not improve variability. Even at a low level there area ton of powers that you can take that are decent with just the base slot - Taunt on Tanks, travel powers, prereq's for powerpools you eventually want (most people don't put boxing into an attack chain for instance). At higher levels it will make it easier to take self rezz's, certain powers from the leadership pool, stealth, and other powers that I wouldn't have even thought of before simply because stamina on just about every character I owned, ate up 3 power selections, 1 power pool selection, and two slots (I don't usually bother putting 2 more slots into health unless I'm trying to min/max regeneration on a character...I usually just recover with some kind of self heal. Unless I don't have one and then I generally don't need one. Besides greens drop readily enough)
It will make certain character's choices harder in a way - my SoA and Warshade already have too many powers to choose from and taking stamina helped me self limit. Yet with that said, it STILL won't matter that much. You can argue that in terms of slots inherent stamina is a questionable thing (when in reality it's not that different from before because, and I can't speak for most people,but for me it only ate up 2 slots I had to give out. Ever.) but there's no possible way that making something inherent that you see on virtually every random build I come across (save for a select few that always seem to come out to answer it - please notice my word choice) doesn't help build variability.
Things are being blown well out of proportion. As usual. -
Quote:Archery has become the most popular blast set?Originally Posted by Biospark
I Dont have in mind a particular powerset that could be offered up as a number one candidate for this, but like others I have some general things to comment on.
First, why should there be a problem with shuffling around powers.
There are many powers that come too early and could be pushed to later in a build.
Others that come much later than when they would make a very sizable contribution.
If the devs moved a power (earlier or later) it would be the perfect excuse to boost up a power that needed improvement, and tone down one that might be a little too good.
Secondly, I agree with others on both Snipes and Nukes. I played around with both these when I was new to the game. I still try them now and again on new characters, but the fact remains (for me) that these powers are skippable because the downside outweighs the upside. These are perfect candidates for change IMO.
Finally, I think all Tier 9s need an overall concept and performance review.
The newest generation of Tier 9s have brought Crash-less Nukes and Semi-Unstoppable powers that cannot be enhanced for recharge.
The developers should decide what is the proper mechanic for a Tier 9 power and make it consistent. I dont mind that my powerset has a Crashing Nuke that much if everyone else suffers the same penalty.
Archery has become the most popular Blast set very quickly. Could RoA be the reason ? -
What if instead of giving human shields mez protection, as has been suggested a huge number of times, they gave human form either inherent or in shields, a great deal of mez resistance; say something like 100 - 200% (warning: numbers pulled out of ***) of mez resistance (maybe enhanceable by resistance?). it wouldn't protect you from mez, but switching down from dwarf wouldn't be nearly as painful because chances are the mez will end soon. It's just a thought.
-
Quote:I'll be in my bunk.Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Am I the only one here who's perfectly willing to admit I like the female walk animation for precisely the reasons of butt wiggle and sexeh and not try to make it seem like I feel bad about it? Seriously, admitting that is what allowed me to make half my female characters
-
Quote:Why does everyone think that a tank doesn't help a team, only itself, just because it doesn't buff them?Originally Posted by Leandro
It's not limited to Stalkers. In my head, I divide the ATs in two classes: the ones that can buff the team/debuff the enemies, and the rest.
Now, if I have to choose between grabbing a Tank with high survivability, or a Cold Domination character that will raise the survivability of the entire team, I'll always go with the one that'll help the team. Similary, given the choice between a Blaster or Stalker vs. a Kinetics defender/troller that'll raise the damage of everybody else, I'll always go with the Kinetics. Pretty much any buff or debuff will beat a "simple damage" AT in my teaming priorities. -
Quote:Just a quick point but I think it's fair to say that most of the time spidey and daredevil and what not fight mostly common thugs, there's just no stories about them because they're not interesting. We're always seeing them dispatch common thugs as a side thing instead of the main point of the story. Batman is another good example - mostly he fights common thugs until he gets to his target. There just isn't much story time wasted on them. However, because now we play the hero now we actually have to fight through those fights that we never really read about.Originally Posted by Ultimo_
What I meant was we should be fighting actual supervillains rather than piles of nameless, faceless thugs. You read Spiderman comics, he's fighting Doc Ock for 90% of the fight, and thugs for 10% (if that). CoH just has that backwards, and has borked the design of villains in general. I mean, a standard non-epic villain should be about as strong as the standard hero (eg. compare Spidey and Electro - they're roughly comparable in ability). They just took the lazy way out and slapped piles and piles of health and immunities and such on them and said, "yeah, that's challenging now, and we didn't have to make a decent AI!"
Now that's not to say there's not tons of goodness here, just that I have some design complaints. That shouldn't be news to anyone by now.
But enough derailing!
Now I do think we should have more dynamic encounters and they've been going in that direction. That being said there are quite a few awesome and fun encounters that a lot of people just skip over (the room of villains attempting a respec during the STF anyone?) or complain about it being too hard (many of the gadget fights). As players too we could easily break an 8 man team into teams of 2 or 3 but that never seems to work. I tried an ITF where I split the team into 2 teams of four and both were doing just fine until one person said "Team split!" and ran back to me because I had the star and I was a tanker. The players are just as guilty as the developers into not making things more dynamic. -
Quote:These are the kinds of questions that I'm not all that worried about. If they don't remember those things that's the kind of thing that will be caught in beta testing, and probably pretty early on. I would be much more concerned about the long term trends that develop in the low level game for people that don't buy Going Rogue.Originally Posted by Dispari
Which raises a good question... how will we be able to tell if someone's a rogue or vigilante and thus available for teaming? I suppose if there's a Brute standing in Talos it's obvious, but will the search results be able to search the Rogue Isles for available people? Will it only return rogues and vigilantes and not pure villains? Will I be able to see in my friends list if they're a rogue?
-
Quote:Frankly I would be less concerned about the AT trends and more concerned about the low population trends on villains specifically. On some servers lowbie redside is very hard to find a team on as it is. It'll get harder if say even a quarter of redsiders start rolling their villains in Praetoria instead of the Rogue Isles.Originally Posted by Dispari
I don't think side-switching will make certain ATs useless. I think the general trend of each AT will continue. Tanks, Defenders, and Stalkers will still be few and far between because other ATs do what they do and more. I think side-switching will just make that more apparent.
-
Quote:Originally Posted by Dispari
Actually, me and the people I know would. I'm not saying I cross my arms and go "NO TANKS!!
" but I'm not going to actively seek one if I have a Brute. Once support is taken care of, I stop looking for support. Once I have a Brute, I'm not going to look for a Tank.
And why would I? Think about it. If a Brute can tank, what do I need a Tank for? What's he going to do? Not die even better? Invent new levels of staying alive? He's sure not going to contribute damage the way a Brute would.
It's worth saying that I have at least 6 Brutes that can handle +2/x6. Three of which can do +2/x8. The WP one can do that WITHOUT IOs. And that's solo. On a team, when we're talking about having at least a Corruptor or Controller or somebody to heal/buff/debuff? Unless your Brute and/or support are just tragically bad (in which case the Tank would be just as bad off), that Brute's not going to die.
Imagine you're on a team with 4 Controllers. And there's a Defender standing over there. Now I'm not saying "Oh maybe he's a kin and we could use that," I'm talking all your bases are covered with those Controllers. You have buffs, debuffs, RES, DEF, and heals out the wazoo. Now are you going to stand up and go "Oh boy, we sure need a Defender!" I doubt it.
Scrappers aren't Brutes. The HP difference is more significant than it seems. And one thing many of my Brutes have in common is that they go over 75% RES at times. That aside, the major difference is that Brutes taunt, while Scrappers don't. Some Scrapper sets have a taunt aura, but I'm talking... every Foot Stomp, every Whirling Axe, every Thunderstrike is taunting foes and making sure they don't attack allies. Not dying is only part of the tanking equation; the other part is taunting and holding aggro. The only reason Scrappers aren't taking up Tank jobs right now is that they can't hold aggro like a Brute or Tank can.
If this is how it goes, then there's really no point to this argument at all. But in my experience this is the exception and not the rule. People might just throw a Tank on a team even if they have 4 Brutes. But if they're as random and carefree as you suggest, there's also nothing stopping them from just filling up a team with Blasters and Stalkers and having them all die because they're uncoordinated and incapable (not that good players couldn't make it work).
In my experience, even PUGs put some thought into their team makeup. Those that don't don't tend to last very long after they form a totally incapable team and then run off and wipe several times in the first mission. People learn what works and what doesn't. And most people who are giving it any thought wouldn't intentionally go recruit a bunch of tanks (Brute or Tank), because there's no point in having more than one, maybe two tanks.
The teams I prefer to build are:
1-2 Brutes / Tanks
2-4 Corrs or VEATs (MMs) / Controllers (Defenders)
1-4 Dominators (Stalkers) / Scrappers, Blasters (HEATs)
Things in parenthesis are ATs I'll take, but not my first choice. Once things roll around, it'll look more like:
1-2 Brutes (Tanks)
2-4 Corrs, Controllers, VEATs (Defenders, MMs)
1-4 Dominators, Blasters, Scrappers (Stalkers, HEATs)
I vary and work around it when necessary. It's not a definite rule. It's just a nice formula I live by, because it's pretty foolproof
Like I said, I'm not going to refuse Tanks on my team. But if I have to pick between Brute and Tank, I'll probably take Brute. And if I already have a Brute, I'm definitely not going to look for a Tank. The ATs I named as my primary choice are more of a "general assistance, help the team out" style, while the others are more of an "I can only do one thing" style. True, Blasters only do one thing, but it's not like damage is ever wasteful. There's no point in adding a Tank if you already have a Brute who can tank.
Coming from someone who, when he plays blasters, plays that crazy ******* blaster, I appreciate a tank on the team far more than a brute.....I pull a lot of aggro when I play my blaster, even off tanks. I've been on tankless teams and the thing is, they don't tank as well.
It's really neither here nor there, and the real question is will complete co-op make certain AT's useless, and I don't think so. Otherwise all I'm looking for is MM's. -
Quote:I more or less agree with you. My only point was is that people don't generally say "I don't want tanks, I have brutes", they say "Oh, you have a tank, come along!" People aren't going to say no to tanks just because they have, say, scrappers on the team, and they're not generally going to say it with brutes, if only because most people don't give a crap what you bring, they see that someone's active and looking for a team, and they're like, "oh, cool!" This is especially true on the lower population servers. Even on the high pop. ones like freedom and virtue, I've, in the past few days, been on multi-tank teams, and tanks are probably the AT that stacks the worst.Originally Posted by Dispari
You MAY be right, for the very limited amount of content you specified. LRSF, STF, and ITF are pretty much the only times when incoming damage is going to be so significantly high that the bonus health and numbers from a Tank would really be "necessary," depending on your team makeup. When I do those things, I tend to have at least 4 of the team be support such as Corruptors or VEATs, and we have no issues keeping Brutes alive. So me and my friends won't be dropping everything to take a Stone Tank.
Now, there more than likely WILL be SOME people who are calling for Tanks, specifically Stone, for LRSF, STF, and ITF. But the amount of content those things represent is rather tiny. I don't see any people shouting that they have to have a Stone Brute to run newspapers, or to do Ghost Widow's arc, or to run a respec trial. And I seriously doubt that's going to change for the vast majority of people.
Yeah, there will always be people who think it's physically impossible for a team to function without a Stone + Kin, and if they fail it's because they didn't have enough Kin. Or delay starting an ITF for 30 minutes looking for a Stone Tank and ignoring the perfectly capable WP Brute over there. But you can hardly consider those people to be the norm.
For high end optimized teams, yeah, you're not likely to see things like tanks, but then you're not likely to now. The most optimized team is 8 fire/rads anyway right? (or so I've heard). Most people, me included, don't give a crap what you bring, they're just happy to have another person on the team. -
Quote:Most of this is crap anyway. Because heroside tends to be specialist, and you can use IO's to shore up what they're not good at their highs are better and on teams their lows are relatively nonexistant. Tell me, with all this Brutes>Tanks crap, once tanks come over, how often do you think you'll hear "RSF starting, lf stone tank!". Non-stone brutes are already sometimes not taken on it (for the same reasons that non-stone tanks aren't taken on the STF, because people are stupid); we already hear it on the ITF. I think for smart teams nothing will change, and you'll take buffs and debuffs, whoever gives them, defenders, trollers, MM's (they're the least likely because of some of the pet problems that tends to come along with them) or corrupters. But I'll still make teams based on what people want to play rather than some mythic omgwtfpwned team (unless I run my all storm TF's again....man those are fun!)Originally Posted by Techbot Alpha
Speak for yourself.
You've obviously never seen 2 MMs steamroller +2 Positron and Valkyrie. Or a team with 3+ MMs obliterating absolutely everything stupid enough to get in the way.
Oh, and a Stalker can solo a Ballista. People always poo-poo them for no good reason.
Not everyone is so snarled up in min/max dps and stupid carp like that. -
Quote:I'm pretty sure there are some scrappers who would have trouble soloing 8 - 10 even-con Warriors in the mid-20's. Warriors hit very very hard.Originally Posted by Psiphon
I agree that generally Defenders don't solo as well as some other AT's but they can still solo pretty well.
In the mid 20's I was able to solo mobs of 8 -10 even con warriors etc on FF/Dark, Dark/Rad and Rad/Sonic which I would say is acceptable.
In regards to the self buffs that isn't strictly true for example:
FF - Dispersion bubble - mez protection and defence to all. Stack this with Tough and weave and you can have a decent defence even without IO's. Add IO's and you can cap melee and ranged.
Kinetics - Siphon Speed - +recharge and speed. Sipon Power - +damage. Fulcram Shift - massive +damage. Transfusion - massive heal. Transfurance - +Endurance.
As I said these are just examples, other sets also offer good self buffs. -
Quote:I think a lot of people knock the "traditional" tank-support-dps team builds and look down on it in some way on these forums. Yet, I've been on teams where that was the natural way to work things and it was a hell of a lot of fun.Originally Posted by Dispari
That doesn't stop people from trying to do it in this game anyway.
Even then, of course, it's not entirely pigeonholed - the tank, if they're doing a good job, will be contributing a hell of a lot to damage and control, same thing with support and same thing with DPS (in fewer ways though).
Have I seen teams that shouldn't go tank/support/dps try to? Yes. And it works badly. But on that note I've also seen the opposite. I've seen a team try to manage without at least one of the traditional roles on team and sometimes it fails. Sometimes it fails miserably. Granted, most of those times it fails because they were trying too hard at something that was too difficult either for team chemistry or for the players behind the builds but whatever.
My point is that whatever your team naturally falls into is how the team should be playing, and I've been on a lot of really really really fun teams where it did break down into those three rolls. I've also been on a lot of crappy teams that did too. But the same is true for the opposite situation too. -
What I don't understand the most about what this conversation has turned into is that even with IO's the optimum team to complete difficult content quickly is still stacked buffing/debuffing, whether it be in the form of trollers, or defender (heroside anyway).
While I think certain sets with the advent of IO's could probably use some help (some of FF comes to mind, although it is quite a powerful set if used correctly on a large team, especially now with Repulsion bomb being KD instead of KB; Sonic also comes to mind, although I do love me a sonic defender) I think most defenders are welcomed on teams - even and especially teams expecting to take on hard content such as LGTF's/ITF's/STF's etc. etc.
There are certain buffs that are made less useful with IO's - my SR scrapper needs neither more defense, nor more end, since she's clocking at at 4+ end/sec. Yet I can't think of another of my characters I can't bleed dry in an extended fight, especially since I play a number of tanks and controllers, and that's WITH end bonuses and what not.
I think that the availability of IO's like Miracle Uniques, Numina Uniques and others is vastly overstated in this thread, since I doubt most people have them on every character and probably many don't have them on one. -
Quote:My problem with people continuing to say it, is that it's a racist thing to say. I wouldn't get away with saying the n-word for black people and then when people came to me angry get away with it by saying "woah, let's not get bogged down by semantics".Originally Posted by Socorro
On the evolution side topic that's started, let's don't get bogged down in semantics.
For all those reading: stop saying it. It's a racist thing to say, and offensive to anyone who does understand what you're saying. -
Quote:Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you!Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
*cough*
No. In nature, cooperation is a fundamental success strategy employed by almost all lifeforms. Not just within a species either - consider bees and flowers, or seed fruit and the animals that eat them and distribute the seeds in their droppings, or the intestinal flora of ruminants. The real law of nature is that genes persist when they create traits that give an advantage, and die with their carriers when they don't. This leads to a delicate balance of cooperation and competition within a species, as each individual (not necessarily consciously) balances the value propagating its own genome with the risk of hyperaggressive competition leaving no individuals capable of breeding. If competition beat out cooperation in every case, I would pick up the nearest weapon and start murdering every male I saw and [forcibly attempting to have connubial relations with] every female in a desperate attempt to pass on my genes. But if everyone did that, humanity would not survive.
Your brand of "social darwinism" is counterindicated by actual study of nature, and also simple common sense. Neither cooperation nor competition is supreme - total competition is apocalyptic, and total cooperation is only possible among genetically identical clones, which are an evolutionary dead end.
Sorry for the tangent/rant, but it really jerks my chain when people use a bad understanding of biology to justify a purely selfish (or purely cooperative, for that matter) blueprint for human society.
No evolutionary biologist would ever have said "only the fittest survive", because it is a tautology. That term was coined by a social darwinist in the early part of last century (I think) who was using his poor understanding of what Darwin was saying to justify his racist views. That people are STILL saying it to this day is really really really annoying.
Actually the only person who gets it right in popular culture is the X-men villain Apocalypse, who is, after a fashion, a social Darwinist. -
Quote:You are vastly overstating the difference on a team between a scrapper and say, a defender or controller. But ignoring that -Originally Posted by Lakanna
Scrappers do perform well on teams, just not every team. Blasters may have higher damage, but most of them aren't going to be in the middle of the fight when fulcrum shift goes off. Blasters make rather bad targets for the AoE sonic debuff, while scrappers and tanks are perfect. And I brought up the stacking buffs and debuffs just because of that argument. It's a bad mechanic, the devs are aware it's a bad mechanic. You really can't use it to keep another bad mechanic in the game.
I honestly think of mez as the sapper problem. Way back when, sappers weren't limited to one per spawn solo. It used to be possible to run into a spawn of 3 minion-level sappers in a malta mission. Which meant that, no matter how well you played, no matter how perfect your strategy, you were rolling dice and seeing if you won. If they hit you, you got to do, well, absolutely nothing. No END means no toggles, no offense, and no way to get away. It really wasn't fun: it was doable with certain builds, but massive END drain has been dialed back because it's frustrating and unfun. No more multiple sapper spawns.
Now, with the situation above, everyone got to experience the frustration equally: scrappers and tankers were just as prone to it as squishies. I understand that mez is a weakness for squishies, and supposed to give them a challenge. But it's a huge, glaring weakness. It isn't Kryptonite, which pops up once in a while, it's being deathly allergic to water: common, debilitating, and not very much fun to deal with every single second.
Stacking buffs/debuffs exist and there are no plans to get rid of them in the game at large. Even if they are eliminated for GR, that's still two other whole freaking games from 1 - 50 where stacking buffs and debuffs exist.
So I'll ask you again:
There's a huge gap between what a scrapper brings to a team and waht a defender/controller brings to the team. WOuld you want to narrow that gap if you introduced complete mez protection, even up to mag 4 mez protection for all squishies? If you don't, are you just going to say "They're close enough to not introduce that mechanic to scrappers."
To which I say to the solo mechanic "They're close enough not to matter very much."
Seriously, this question only really really matters if you're soloing on anything above x2 or +2. You're not going to get much sympathy if you're asking it to be easier to min/max on characters that are already capable of some pretty rediculous performance by min/maxers. -
Quote:Just so I hope everyone knows where I am, I don't think you should ignore it, but I don't think every challenge solo for a squishy AT that performs extremely well on a team should be negligible either.Originally Posted by B_L_Angel
This. ^^
The question is still just how bad is it. Some are saying its crippling others are saying you can ignore it. -
Quote:Then should all AT's have similar performance levels on teams as well, and not just solo? And if that's the case, how do you bump scrappers up, add huge non-stacking debuffs to IO's as well? Adding mez protection in to IO pools "because scrappers get it" is a huge slippery slope.Originally Posted by Lakanna
Given that they are played by a decent player who knows the AT and uses all the tools at their disposal? I think it should be fairly close, yes. I don't think that certain AT's should be able to completely ignore mez, while it cripples another.
Mez protection isn't an I win button, and anyone who says it is is just as guilty of exaggeration as anyone else. Mez effects in this game are a terrible mechanic: taking something out of the fight completely for a length of time. Controllers and Dominators both have primary control sets, and both have serious contenders for strongest all-around builds. When used against players, mez is just as absurd. Melee types get a free pass, though. That doesn't make mez effects less important, just means that the characters who already have low personal mitigation, can have their ability to fight or run cut off arbitrarily.
As for the team of 8, that isn't mez protection, it's buff/debuff. Which the devs have mentioned as a bad mechanic, and one that isn't going to be changed anytime soon. SHOULD stacking buffs and debuffs be changed? Probably. WILL it? Probably not soon.
What happens if the devs tomorrow figure out a way to change buffs and debuffs to not stack to absurd levels? Will that team of 8 defenders still be able to tear through content? Stacking buffs and debuffs are an aberration. I wish I could find that post with a redname saying so.
But yes. I think that baseline, a well-built character using all the powers at their disposal should have roughly the same performance at SO level. And I think tht when comparing 2 different characters, both fully IO'd out, they should still deliver similar performance. Mez protection for every AT, be it buyable as a power or as an IO, would help to narrow the gap, for a small opportunity cost or powers or slots. (That's what I'd be willing to give up, same as certain melee sets need to use a slot or power picks to gain KB protection- the choice between picking up that power/ IO slot or picking something else.)
That's the problem that people don't seem to be seeing. yes, squishies are not as good solo, but scrappers are not as good on teams. If squishies are as good solo as they are on teams, wouldn't scrappers and to a lesser extent tankers be totally unwanted on teams? I mean on high performance teams they're already pretty unwanted. -
Quote:No. I think tankers who are IO'd should be able to, with some difficulty, take on that kind of map, if only because if they're unable to, they cannot fulfill their team role. Tanks, and that's and AT I do have a lot of play experience with, take a long long long time to mature. For most of their career they are difficult to solo if only because their access to actual damage powers is so level limited, coupled with their lower (not low, lower) damage modifier.Originally Posted by Eiko-chan
+0x4, for the record.
Oh, and should I mention my Tanker, who takes +2x8 without difficulty, +3x8 without much difficulty, and +4x8 with just a little difficulty? Are you saying that Tankers are automatically more "super" than Corruptors? Or Defenders, Blasters, or any other "squishy", for that matter?
That they are able to fight at increased difficulties does not mean more super. I guarantee you my trollers, and not just my fire kin, are taking on similar challenges and beating them FASTER. I don't have much of a problem with this.
Because of their team role Tankers, and to a lesser extent Scrappers, are able to take quite a beating because that is their role on teams. They can do damage, and I like that they do, but tankers need to reliably be able to mitigate an alpha even against damage types that they have no reliable means of protection from.
But let me throw that question back at you:
Do you think a team of 8 tankers should be able to complete a STF as quickly as a team of 8 defenders or controllers? -
Quote:Every AT can complete +0 x0 pretty easily. Mine can all complete +2 x0 with what I term "minimal difficulty" (very few deaths). More than that? I don't know.Originally Posted by StratoNexus
No. But its possible the variance could be a bit less than it currently is.